Brussels, 26/01/2005 (Agence Europe) - The election of Mahmoud Abbas to the head of the Palestinian Authority on 9 January brings hope to many that a settlement will be reached in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But will the two sides manage to really use this “window of opportunity”? It is to this question that the participants at the round table on “Prospects for Peace: the New Palestinian Leadership”, organised on Tuesday evening in Brussels, are invited by The Transatlantic Institute to respond. Any such hopes, however, were rapidly dashed by the strained discussions between the Palestinian Delegate General for Belgium and the EU, Ambassador Chawki Armali, and the Head of the Israeli mission with the EU, Alon Snir, who mainly wished to uphold their own country's policy. The head of the observer mission at Palestinian elections, Michel Rocard, and the director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia, Daniel Pipes, remain extremely pessimistic about the outcome of the Middle East conflict. The founder of the European Policy Centre, Stanley Crossick, sought to bring a little optimism to the debate.
As the round table opened, the Palestinian ambassador and the head of the Israeli mission expressed diametrically opposed views about the situation on the ground. Despite all the “Israeli errors”, the new chairman of the Palestinian Authority continued to oppose the military Intifada although this was “not without difficulty” within the government, Ambassador Chawki Armali said. Describing the reaction by Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, as “misplaced” and “visceral” (he had cut off all contact with Abbas following the suicide attack the day after the elections), Armali said it was “unjustified” to ask Mr Abbas to fight the Hamas, or any other movement, before resuming dialogue as “the Palestinian security forces are not ready”. “We all, with the international community, want to seize this window of opportunity to revive negotiation” and set up the Quartet's Roadmap for the Middle East, he said.
Answering Mr Armali, the head of the Israeli mission with the EU was sceptical about whether Palestinians were truly resolved to seize this “window of opportunity”. Alon Snir said “there is a price to pay” for achieving peace and “we are willing to pay that price”, as proven by Israel during the unfolding of Palestinian presidential elections. “We did everything possible to make these elections democratic”, even if that comprised risks for the country's internal security, he assured under the sarcastic look of Ambassador Armali. Furthermore, and despite lack of support from his own party, the Israeli Prime Minister maintains his plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, he added. Israel, however, doubts the Palestinian society is willing to pay this price. “We want to see (…) and not just hear declarations (…) but what we have seen so far is not conclusive. We want security but we do not have it since the election”, Snir added, saying - unlike the previous speaker - that Abbas has sufficient capacity and infrastructure to put an end to terrorist attacks.
Abruptly ending the bias expressed by the two previous speakers, Michel Rocard nonetheless said he was extremely pessimistic about the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian elections were “remarkable” and “democratic”, he said, congratulating Israel for having allowed elections to be held but nonetheless calling Mr Snir to order. “You have done a great deal” but “you can do very much more”, he said. Although this democratic move by the Palestinian people is a good thing, it does not allow Michel Rocard to be optimistic about developments mainly because of the policy upheld by Ariel Sharon. The latter's argument that “the Palestinian Authority can contain terrorism” is “dangerous”, Rocard said. While firmly condemning terrorist attacks, he feels that “intelligence” and not “panic” is needed to face up to the “horror”. In general, especially in recent days, the Israeli Prime Minister's reaction has been “out of proportion”. “As Israel is a great democracy, why does it allow a few colonialists to act as delinquents?”, Snir asked, also criticising the lack of responsibility on the part of the religious authorities of both sides in this conflict. Israel is “suffering from insecurity, and that is understandable” but “the Hebrew State must show confidence in working with the Palestinian Authority” instead of first demanding the end of the attacks.
David Pipes also expressed pessimism but for reasons other than those expressed by Michel Rocard. With a very theoretical and historically-based argument, Pipes set out the reasons for his pessimism. In his view, some members of the Palestine Authority “continue to want to destroy Israel” and hence advocate war. Until war is over, however, and until the Palestinians accept that Israel is “a fact”, any negotiation will be in vain, he explained.
The only discordant voice seeking to breathe a little hope into the discussion came from Stanley Crossick, who called on both parties to “move forward” and stop seeking who is wrong and who is right. There are naturally people on both sides who do not want peace but one must be patient and give Abbas a chance to succeed, he said. The United States like the European Union must work to find a political solution to the conflict but “without casting judgement”, he added. Such a solution is first to be found in permanent withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip followed by rebuilding of the Occupied Territories with the “active involvement of all parties”, he continued, proposing the creation of a High Level Group formed of Palestinians, Israelis, and representatives from the United States, the EU and Egypt. “I believe there is hope” but this is to be found in a “ceasefire, withdrawal from Gaza, the reconstruction of the Palestinian territories, and by looking toward the future”, he concluded.
During the discussions after the debate, the Austrian Socialist deputy, Hannes Swoboda, like Mr Rocard, called on Israel to show proof of intelligence. If terrorists know that, through their action, they will automatically entail armed retaliation from Tsahal, then they are given far too much power in this conflict, he said. Israel has the right to ask Mr Abbas to combat terrorism but he must be given the time to do so, he went on. The advisor to Jordan's mission in Brussels, Malek Tawal, said the pessimism shown at the debate can be explained by the “suffering on both sides”. Despite it all, Tawal sees cause for optimism for the outcome of the conflict with Mr Abbas' appointment, the new US Administration and the increased EU commitment in the region. “Let's us hope that one day we shall see Sharon and Abbas side by side” as was the case of the former Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, and the former Prime Minister of Israel, Ytzhak Rabin, he concluded.
A small ray of hope in a debate which, from the beginning to the end and despite the attempts made by some speakers to ease the strain, proved tense and heavy.